employment law

Employer's Toolbox

Maryland Delays Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program: What Employers Need to Know

In a significant development, the Maryland Department of Labor has proposed delaying the implementation of the state’s Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) program. This postponement aims to provide additional time for businesses and employees to prepare for the program’s rollout, especially in light of recent federal workforce reductions and funding shifts impacting Maryland’s economy. Background on FAMLI Enacted in 2022, the FAMLI program is designed to offer Maryland workers up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for themselves or family members facing serious health conditions, welcome a new child, or address needs related to a family member’s military deployment. The program ensures job protection and provides a portion of the employee’s wages during the leave period. Proposed Changes Originally, the FAMLI program was set to begin payroll contributions on July 1, 2025, with benefits becoming available on July 1, 2026. However, the Maryland Department of Labor has recommended the following adjustments: Payroll Deductions Start Date: Postponed to January 1, 2027. Benefits Availability Date: Deferred to January 1, 2028. This proposed delay is intended to grant businesses and employees more time to adapt to the new system, especially considering the economic uncertainties arising from recent federal decisions. Maryland Labor Secretary Portia Wu emphasized the state’s commitment to supporting its residents during these challenging times, stating, “State agencies like MD Labor are laser-focused on supporting Marylanders as we all respond in real time to the cascading impacts of federal decisions.”    Legislative Actions In response to the proposed delay, Maryland state Senator Stephen Hershey introduced Senate Bill 355, seeking to officially extend the FAMLI program’s effective dates by two years. During a Senate Finance Committee hearing on February 5, 2025, concerns were raised about the readiness of the program’s implementation and its potential economic impact on the business community.    Implications for Employers and Employees If the proposed delay is enacted, employers will have until January 1, 2027, to begin payroll deductions for the FAMLI program, with employees becoming eligible for benefits starting January 1, 2028. This extension provides additional time for businesses to adjust their payroll systems and for employees to plan for the upcoming changes. The Moore-Miller administration remains dedicated to implementing a robust paid family and medical leave program that benefits workers while maintaining the state’s economic competitiveness. The Maryland Department of Labor continues to develop the necessary digital infrastructure for claims processing and financial management to ensure a seamless transition once the program is launched.    Stay Informed As the situation evolves, it’s crucial for both employers and employees to stay informed about legislative developments related to the FAMLI program. For the most current information and updates, visit the Maryland Department of Labor’s official FAMLI page.  Luchansky Law is committed to keeping you updated on this and other legislative matters that impact your business and employment rights. For personalized legal guidance regarding the FAMLI program and its implications, please contact our office at: (410) 522-1020 | info@luchanskylaw.com |  www.luchanskylaw.com  About Luchansky Law   Luchansky Law is a preeminent labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Resources  OHS Online paidleave.maryland.gov  

Read More »
Employer's Toolbox

EEOC Policy Shift Under the New Administration: Key Changes Employers Must Know

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has recently announced several changes under the leadership of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. These actions are part of an effort to refocus the agency’s mission on protecting women from sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination by rolling back certain gender identity policies from the previous administration.    The specific measures implemented by Acting Chair Lucas include: Prioritizing the Defense of Biological Sex: Emphasizing compliance, investigations, and litigation that uphold the recognition of biological and binary definitions of sex, including advocating for women’s rights to single-sex spaces in the workplace.  Removing the Pronoun Feature: Eliminating the agency’s “pronoun app,” a feature in employees’ Microsoft 365 profiles that allowed the display of chosen pronouns alongside employee names across platforms like Outlook and Teams.  Ending the Use of the “X” Gender Marker: Discontinuing the option to select an “X” gender marker during the intake process for filing a charge of discrimination.  Modifying Forms to Remove “Mx.” Prefix: Updating the charge of discrimination and related forms to exclude “Mx.” from the list of available prefix options.  Reviewing the “Know Your Rights” Poster: Initiating a review of the EEOC’s “Know Your Rights” poster, which employers are legally required to display in workplaces, with potential revisions forthcoming.  Removing Materials Promoting Gender Ideology: Conducting an ongoing review and removal of materials on the EEOC’s website and training programs that promote gender ideology.    It’s important to note that certain documents, such as the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (issued by a 3-2 vote in 2024), the EEOC Strategic Plan 2022-2026, and the EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2028, cannot be unilaterally modified or removed by the Acting Chair without a majority vote from the full Commission. In her statement, Acting Chair Lucas emphasized, “Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable. It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths—or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.” She also highlighted that “women have … safety interests, that warrant certain single-sex facilities at work and other spaces outside the home. It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms or other similar facilities which implicate these significant privacy and safety interests.” These actions represent a significant shift in the EEOC’s approach to issues of sex and gender identity under the current administration.  If your business needs guidance on how these EEOC changes impact your workplace policies, Luchansky Law is here to help. Our team stays ahead of evolving employment laws to ensure your company remains compliant and protected. Contact us today to discuss your specific needs and safeguard your workplace. (410) 522-1020 | info@luchanskylaw.com |  www.luchanskylaw.com About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Sources eeoc.gov   https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/removing-gender-ideology-and-restoring-eeocs-role-protecting-women-workplace?utm_source=chatgpt.com   https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/eeoc-acting-chair-issues-statement-on-8534448/

Read More »
Employer's Toolbox

New DOL Rule: What Employers Need to Know About Worker Classification Under the FLSA

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently published its final rule (89 FR 1638) addressing how to determine whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This rule has significant implications for employers, as it refines the criteria used to evaluate worker classifications and underscores the importance of compliance. The original rule, published during the prior administration, focused on two core factors: the degree of control over the work and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. It aimed to simplify the classification process but was criticized for potentially making it easier to classify workers as independent contractors.   The new rule departs from that approach by reinstating a broader “totality of the circumstances” analysis, incorporating six factors to assess economic dependence. This approach provides a more comprehensive framework, emphasizing the full scope of the working relationship rather than prioritizing a few key factors. Resource: U.S. Department of Labor – Final Rule on Independent Contractor Classification   Key Aspects of the Rule The DOL’s final rule emphasizes a “totality of the circumstances” approach, with the ultimate question being whether a worker is economically dependent on the employer or is in business for themselves. While the rule retains the “economic reality” test, it outlines six core factors that employers must evaluate: Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill Investment by the worker and the employer Degree of permanence of the work relationship Nature and degree of control exercised by the employer Extent to which the work is an integral part of the employer’s business Skill and initiative required for the work No single factor is determinative; rather, they are weighed collectively to assess whether the worker operates as an independent contractor or is economically dependent on the employer and thus classified as an employee.   Implications for Employers 1. Increased Scrutiny Employers should expect increased scrutiny of worker classifications under the revised framework. Misclassifying workers can lead to significant legal and financial consequences, including liability for back wages, overtime pay, and penalties. With the DOL’s heightened focus on enforcement, businesses should carefully evaluate their existing classifications. 2. Review of Contractor Agreements Businesses that rely on independent contractors should review their agreements and operational practices to ensure they align with the new rule’s criteria. Factors such as the contractor’s investment in tools or equipment, the permanence of the working relationship, and the level of control over work hours and tasks should be documented and defensible. 3. Operational Adjustments Employers may need to adjust operational practices to reflect the independent status of contractors. For example, allowing greater autonomy in how and when work is performed or reevaluating the permanence of relationships with contractors could help demonstrate compliance with the rule. 4. Proactive Compliance Measures To mitigate risks, employers should conduct internal audits of worker classifications and consult legal counsel to ensure adherence to the updated standards. Employee misclassification lawsuits are costly and time-consuming, making proactive compliance a wise investment.   Conclusion The DOL’s final rule underscores the need for employers to exercise diligence when classifying workers. By thoroughly understanding and applying the “economic reality” test, businesses can reduce the risk of misclassification and its associated penalties. Employers should stay informed of any future developments in this area, as worker classification continues to be a priority for federal and state labor agencies. For more information on how the DOL’s rule may affect your business, or to conduct a worker classification audit, contact the experienced attorneys at Luchansky Law.   About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.    Resources U.S. Department of Labor – Final Rule on Independent Contractor Classification Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Overview DOL Compliance Assistance Toolkit Worker Classification Under the FLSA Fact Sheet  

Read More »
Employer's Toolbox

Understanding the Intersection of FMLA and State Paid Family Leave Programs

LThe Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 grants eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave annually for specific family and medical reasons. While FMLA leave is typically unpaid, employees may choose—or employers may require—the substitution of accrued paid leave to cover this period. This means that an employee’s accrued paid leave, such as vacation or sick leave, can run concurrently with FMLA leave, providing income during what would otherwise be an unpaid absence. In recent years, several states have implemented their own Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) programs, offering paid leave benefits to employees for qualifying family and medical reasons. These state programs are designed to complement federal provisions, providing wage replacement during leave periods. States like Maryland, California, New York, and Washington have enacted PFML laws, each with unique provisions regarding eligibility, duration, and funding. Do FMLA Substitution Rules Apply to State or Local Paid Family Leave Programs? A key question for employers and employees alike is whether FMLA regulations on the substitution of paid leave apply when employees take leave under state or local paid family leave programs. The answer lies in understanding the distinct nature of these benefits: FMLA Substitution of Paid Leave:Under FMLA, “substitution” refers to the practice of using accrued employer-provided paid leave (like vacation or sick leave) concurrently with FMLA leave. Importantly, FMLA’s substitution provisions apply to accrued paid leave provided by the employer, not to benefits from external sources like state PFML programs. State PFML Programs:State PFML benefits are typically funded through state-administered insurance programs, financed by payroll taxes paid by employees, employers, or both. These benefits are not considered accrued paid leave under an employer’s policies but are instead state-provided wage replacements. As such, FMLA substitution provisions do not apply to these benefits. Practical Implications for Employers and Employees When an employee takes leave that qualifies under both FMLA and a state PFML program, the two types of leave generally run concurrently. During this period, the employee receives wage replacement through the state program while being protected under FMLA’s job security provisions. Employers cannot require employees to substitute accrued paid leave for the period covered by state PFML benefits, as these are separate entitlements. However, employers and employees may agree to allow accrued paid leave to supplement state PFML benefits—such as where state benefits provide partial wage replacement—to achieve full salary coverage during the leave period. Key Takeaways FMLA substitution provisions apply only to employer-provided accrued paid leave, not to state PFML benefits. Employers and employees should familiarize themselves with the specific provisions of their state PFML program and its interaction with FMLA. Clear communication of leave policies and updates is critical to ensuring compliance and informed decision-making. For More Resources on FMLA and PFML Luchansky Law has previously explored topics related to FMLA and Maryland’s Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) program. For additional insights, please see: Maryland is Preparing to Implement the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Program—Are You Prepared?This post details Maryland’s FAMLI program, which offers paid family leave benefits, and its implications for employers. Employers Can Challenge FMLA Certifications Without Obtaining Additional Medical OpinionsThis post discusses the rights of employers to challenge FMLA medical certifications and the regulatory framework for doing so.  Stay informed about federal and state developments at employmentattorneymd.com to navigate the complexities of FMLA and PFML compliance while supporting employees during critical life events.  Sign up for more content from Luchansky Law here.   About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.       

Read More »
Uncategorized

LUCHANSKY LAW ENFORCEMENT ALERT: Maryland Trucking Company Ordered to Pay $46K in Back Wages and Damages; Driver Reinstated After Whistleblower Investigation

TrueStart Transport LLC, a Maugansville-based freight and heavy-haul trucking provider, has been ordered by the U.S. Department of Labor to pay $46,094 in back wages and damages to an employee wrongfully terminated for refusing to drive an oversized load without the required safety precautions. This decision follows an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which found that TrueStart Transport violated the whistleblower protections under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). Key Findings: The employee raised safety concerns after being directed to transport an oversized load without the legally required escort vehicle. After refusing to drive the load under unsafe conditions, the company terminated the employee and left them stranded at a Tennessee truck stop, forcing them to pay for their return home to Texas. OSHA determined the company’s actions were retaliatory, violating the employee’s federally protected right to refuse unsafe work. Penalties Imposed: $9,698 in back wages and interest. $10,000 in punitive damages. $26,396 in compensatory damages for the wrongful termination and financial losses incurred. Additionally, OSHA ordered TrueStart Transport to reinstate the driver to their previous position, emphasizing that an employee’s right to raise safety concerns is protected under federal law. Employer Takeaways: Employers must understand the critical importance of complying with federal whistleblower protection laws. Firing or retaliating against employees who raise safety concerns is not only illegal but can result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage. Employers should ensure they have proper procedures in place to handle employee safety complaints and avoid similar costly outcomes. See the DOL Press Release here. For more information on whistleblower protections under federal law, visit OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Programs. About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204. 

Read More »
Employer's Toolbox

AI in Hiring: Key Lessons from the Workday Bias Suit for Employers

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape hiring practices, employers are increasingly facing legal challenges related to potential discrimination. The recent Workday AI Bias Lawsuit serves as a significant reminder of the risks associated with automated decision tools (ADTs). In this case, Workday was accused of using an AI system that allegedly discriminated against minority job applicants, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of AI tools in recruitment. AI Discrimination and Regulatory Landscape The Workday lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal cases addressing the role of AI in hiring decisions. While AI offers efficiency and speed, it can also perpetuate or amplify biases if not properly monitored. This has caught the attention of lawmakers and regulators, leading to stricter guidelines around AI use in employment. States like New York and New Jersey have already introduced legislation requiring employers to conduct annual bias audits on their AI tools to prevent algorithmic discrimination. These laws mandate that AI tools must undergo independent reviews, and employers are required to notify candidates if AI is used in the hiring process. Best Practices for Employers Using AI in Hiring In light of the Workday lawsuit and the evolving regulatory environment, there are several key steps employers should take to minimize the risk of discrimination claims: Conduct Bias AuditsEmployers must ensure that their AI systems undergo regular bias audits to identify any potential discriminatory outcomes. These audits help safeguard against violations of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Ensure Human OversightAI tools should not be the sole decision-maker in hiring processes. Employers need to maintain human oversight to review decisions made by AI and ensure fairness, especially in cases where candidates from protected classes might be affected. Transparency and Employee NotificationEmployers should be transparent with applicants and employees about the use of AI in hiring. This includes notifying candidates when AI tools are used and providing them with the opportunity to request a review or challenge the decision. Comply with Federal and State GuidelinesEmployers should stay informed about both state-specific and federal guidelines on the use of AI in hiring. For example, the Department of Labor (DOL) recommends that employers using AI tools regularly test these systems to ensure they do not violate laws related to wage calculations or disability accommodations. Looking Ahead As AI tools become more common in hiring, employers must be proactive in addressing the risks of algorithmic bias. The lessons from the Workday case, along with new state and federal regulations, underscore the need for transparency, regular auditing, and human oversight. By taking these steps, employers can leverage the benefits of AI while minimizing the risk of discrimination claims. About Luchansky Law  Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.  References  Bias Audits and Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/americans-disabilities-act-and-use-software-algorithms-and-artificial-intelligence Human Oversight Recommendations: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai Transparency and Employee Notification: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf State and Federal Compliance: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20241016 Future Considerations on Algorithmic Bias: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-eeoc-wants-to-make-ai-hiring-fairer-for-people-with-disabilities/  

Read More »
Employee Agreements

FTC Appeals Ruling Against Noncompete Ban: What Employers Need to Know

On October 18, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officially filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging a district court ruling that struck down the agency’s proposed ban on most noncompete agreements. This move follows the August 20 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which concluded that the FTC overstepped its authority in issuing such a sweeping rule. The ruling was a significant victory for employers using noncompete agreements, but the battle is far from over.   Background on the FTC’s Noncompete Ban The FTC initially approved the noncompete ban in April 2024, aiming to prohibit employers from entering into or enforcing noncompete agreements with most U.S. workers. The agency argued that noncompetes suppress wages, stifle innovation, and limit competition. The proposed rule was set to affect nearly 30 million employees, or about 20% of the U.S. workforce, and was scheduled to take effect on September 4. In particular, the ban targeted agreements that prevent workers from taking jobs at rival firms or starting their own businesses in the same industry. The rule included exceptions for specific sectors, such as airlines and financial services, and carved out allowances for senior executives earning more than $151,000 annually.   The Court’s Ruling: Ryan LLC v. FTC The court’s August ruling, brought forward by tax services provider Ryan LLC and various business groups, dealt a major blow to the FTC. U.S. District Judge Ada E. Brown ruled that the agency did not have the authority to impose such a broad regulation, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” According to the court, the FTC’s blanket ban ignored the legitimate business interests of employers, such as protecting trade secrets and preventing the loss of key employees to competitors.   What Happens Next? As the appeal process unfolds, employers must remain vigilant. The district court ruling has temporarily blocked the FTC’s ban from going into effect, but there is still uncertainty. Should the Fifth Circuit rule in favor of the FTC, employers may face a new regulatory landscape in which noncompete agreements are drastically limited.   Key Considerations for Employers While the appeal works its way through the courts, employers should take proactive steps to prepare for potential outcomes. Here are several actions businesses can consider: Review Current Agreements: Now is the time to conduct a thorough audit of any existing noncompete agreements. Ensure they comply with applicable state laws, which still govern noncompetes in the absence of a federal ban. Focus on Alternatives: In the event that noncompete agreements are further restricted or banned, employers can explore other legal tools to protect sensitive information. Confidentiality agreements, nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), and nonsolicitation agreements are common alternatives. Monitor Legal Developments: Stay updated on federal and state-level legal changes. The appeal in the Fifth Circuit could take months or longer, but the impact will be significant for businesses that rely on noncompetes.   The Broader Debate: Employers vs. Workers’ Rights The FTC’s proposed rule and subsequent litigation underscore the ongoing debate between employer rights and worker mobility. While advocates of noncompete agreements argue they are essential for protecting trade secrets and investments in employee training, critics claim they unfairly limit job opportunities and suppress wages. As the legal landscape continues to shift, businesses must be ready to adapt to new regulations while safeguarding their competitive interests. At Luchansky Law, we are closely monitoring the developments in this case and are available to assist employers in reviewing and revising their employment agreements. If you have questions about how the FTC’s proposed ban or the current appeal might affect your business, contact our team with questions.    About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.    References  Federal Trade Commission. (2024, October 18). FTC appeals decision in Ryan LLC v. FTC. Retrieved from FTCPress Release U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2024). U.S. Chamber challenges FTC noncompete rule in court. Retrieved from U.S. Chamber of Commerce website Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2024, October 19). SHRM’s response to the FTC noncompete rule appeal. Retrieved from SHRM.org  

Read More »

Maryland Overtime

Maryland overtime attorney Bruce Luchansky answers: “What is overtime in Maryland?” In Maryland, “overtime” is an employee working more than 40 hours in a single workweek.  Contrary to popular belief, working more than 8 hours in one day does not constitute overtime in Maryland.  Therefore, if an employee works three 12-hour shifts in a single workweek, the employee only has worked a total of 36 hours in the week.  Even though s/he worked 12 hours per day, s/he has not worked overtime.  When a non-exempt employee does work more than 40 hours per week, the employee must be paid at the rate of 1 ½ times the employees regular wage for all hours worked above 40.  When the employer is a private company (i.e., not a governmental agency) the employer may not substitute additional paid leave in lieu of wages – a common mistake that employers make.   If you have questions about what overtime is, how you calculate it, and whether you are entitled to recover unpaid wages, contact an experienced employment law attorney.

Read More »

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Let's talk.

Call us at 410-522-1020 or fill out the form below to receive a confidential initial consultation.

Name
Untitled